etudiant

3 hours ago, FPizz said:

Newark's temps are almost as useless as central parks.

Don't know about Newark, but Central Park is ok for winter temperatures and for precipitation afaik.

NYC CP summer temperatures otoh are really suspect.

2 hours ago, Roger Smith said:

On this question of the role of AGW in the appearance of such events, I agree with previous comments about the difficulty of disentangling the signal from the processes. Logically speaking, if we at least agree that AGW must be warming the atmosphere by some amount (1 C deg on average but closer to 2 C in subarctic regions, and also from some studies stronger in the n.h. than the s.h.), then we have a number of possible interactive scenarios:

 

Without the luxury of a "control earth" that we could study for differences, the field is wide open to speculation, which in a way is causing a lot of unhelpful confusion since relatively low-information onlookers are quite free to take any climate occurrence and concoct an "explanation" for it that falls entirely into climate change, for example, the recent rather cold April they had in Europe was "explained" as a consequence of AGW, which of course begged the question, why were most of the years that had similar means back in the Maunder minimum or the coldest parts of the 19th century?  And why is every April not now like this? (most are quite warm in recent years). The answer is probably that the cold April was just "one of those things" and cannot realistically be explained by greenhouse gases, in fact one could argue that it was even less likely to occur than it might have been otherwise. 

I do believe that the frequency of warm weather events of all kinds is bound to increase if we warm the atmosphere by 1-2 deg but it has to be said that the increase must be demonstrated to fall in a higher range than you could expect by relaxing criteria by 1-2 deg from past frequencies, in order to demonstrate a change in process, otherwise all you are left with is a realization of the shifting range of the bell curves. 

Imho, Roger here is providing  a Masters Class on the topic, with emphasis on some real issues.

This stuff is tough, lots of unexpected secondary processes complicate developments, so inadequate models and simulations that fall well short of the needed resolutions produce unreliable results. 

Has there ever been an effort to really grid a suitable area, say 100 miles square, to verify the modeling parameters employed? 

It would not be cheap to do, requiring many tens of thousands of sensors at multiple altitudes, but the ground truths it would gather would be essential to constrain the models.

5 hours ago, Juliancolton said:

I see you still need to practice your edging a bit

High standards indeed!

3 hours ago, hudsonvalley21 said:

 

Only in the subarctic.

3 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

California will be in a non-sustainable population crisis, inside of 30 years, without viable implementation in mass-produced desalination technology/advances necessary to make that happen.

You never know about California weather.

It had an atmospheric river/ flood that put the Central Valley under 20 feet of water back in 1862, to the painful surprise of the recent white immigrants. The native locals, who had seen this before , safely retreated to high ground before the event. 

Today, no one remembers and  so we remains similarly clueless and unprepared.

3 hours ago, forkyfork said:

this is a deflection tactic that works on dumb people. congrats

How is this deflection? Also why on just dumb people? Hypocritical behaviour is not well regarded by most people, even intelligent ones.

I simply state that the people who are leading the public are distancing themselves from any actual personal effort. That does not inspire confidence.

16 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

I don’t agree. The major greenhouse gas polluters (https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240) want to pass the blame for their scope 3 emissions (the majority of their emissions). This is their effort to deflect attention from their responsibility so as to be able to continue to profit from products that impose huge and growing externalities on the public whom they try to blame.

That is not how I see it. The suppliers of fossil fuels can be rightfully burdened with extra costs to offset the damage they are inflicting on the environment.

However, for individuals who excoriate the use of fossil fuels and who highlight the potential adverse consequences should set an example of how to behave, rather than flaunting their complete disrespect for the message they preach. Private flights to climate conferences and purchases of lavish beachfront estates are simply inconsistent with that message.

Maybe the community needs new spokespeople.

10 minutes ago, Gravity Wave said:

Looks more like 8:00 than 4:00 in Manhattan right now.

Sheeting rain just started here. Hoping for a decent soak.

Settled down to a much more modest drizzle after a brief (5 minutes max) heavy rain.

4 hours ago, SnoSki14 said:

You'd need systemic nationwide changes to curb emissions. 

A few people flying in a jet ain't doing diddly squat. Also how do you want people to get around...bike a few thousand miles.

They do set a really bad example though.  It is classic 'do as I say, not as I do'. That does not sit well with most people.

41 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

a rich person flying on a private jet changes the absorption spectrum of co2? lol

No, s/he merely adds a lifetime supply of CO2 emissions on every flight.

Maybe Zoom conferencing should be mandatory instead?

1 hour ago, Juliancolton said:

There's really no grandfather clause for that sort of thing? My '88 560SL has lost all climate control, which isn't critical because I only drive it on the best of the best weather days, but I do still have aspirations to get that system working again. Would it just need to be completely retrofitted?

Not an expert, but afaik, the law allows one to recycle the offending coolant. So there are shops that have the needed facilities and  refrigerant salvaged.

A 560SL is a splendid car, lucky you. Well worth the trouble of getting it fully shipshape. 

1 hour ago, gravitylover said:

...and the AC doesn't work in the (used) car I got last fall

Probably needs a refill on refrigerant, if the car is of an earlier date, that will be illegal.

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

The following information is based on a multiple regression equation based on high temperatures at Newark, LaGuardia Airport, and White Plains to estimate the high temperatures at Central Park for June to address the impact of today’s thick tree cover. The equation was based on June 1-June 30, 1971-2000 daily high temperatures. That period was the last base normal period during which at least half of the days were not impacted by increasing tree cover. A few days were excluded from the sample due to “Missing” values for White Plains.

Based on the regression equation, there may have been up to 32 additional 90° days in June during the 2000-20 period. That would lift Central Park’s average number of such days during June 2000-20 to 3.8 from 2.2. That would be reasonably in line with the 5.2 recorded at LaGuardia Airport and 4.2 at Newark. 

Excellent work!  That kind of impact seems very plausible. 

It does underscore the deficiency in the current situation with the NYC weather record getting distorted. 

15 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Unfortunately, that is the case when it comes to the climate record. The Conservancy does not place much value in the integrity of the climate record. That's the reality of its inaction despite what is now unequivocal evidence of the impact of the overgrowth of the trees around the ASOS.

No argument, but surely the responsibility for the integrity of the weather records falls on the NWS.

Imho, the Conservancy  in this instance is an innocent bystander, they have no dog in this fight. 

As an aside, the site is really smothered, there is a 70 foot or so tree just to the east, along with the sheltering shrubbery, which really surrounds the fenced in site proper.

I'd love to envision a control plot sited nearby without the vegetation. It could really help determine the impact of site overgrowth.

2 hours ago, Baltimorewx said:

Cicadas are loud at the park in Timonium about time lol. The Jeep slayed several on the way up, plenty of wiper fluid haha. Anyway, I will be working with Mappy come MondayTime to study up 

Seems to be a regional phenomenon.

Here in NYC, despite 90+ degree weather, I've yet to hear one, much less a multitude. Am still hoping, but fear a cicada bust, if there is such a thing.

20 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The Conservatory won’t deal with the problem. However, it has acted in other cases when there were hanging limbs, so it has the capacity to do what is needed.

Afaik, the Conservancy only acts if there is a danger to people, but otherwise prefers to let nature do its own thing.

So even if the weather station gets smothered by the surrounding growth, that is not a Conservancy problem.

11 hours ago, cptcatz said:

Weird, because that seems to contradict this map

Think there is enough wiggle room in the specifications to allow that kind of difference in presentation.

A 1 degree anomaly relative to a baseline that is shifting is hard to hang one hat on.

It seems that we are just getting to the point where we can get really comprehensive SST measurements globally. Sadly, the clock starts now for this good data, all the prior data relies on sampling that then gets extended, so any anomaly discussions are still subject to wide error bars.

I frankly think it is very impressive that so much has been learned despite the really spotty data. but I'm hopeful we'll  do much better once we have comprehensive data over long  periods. With luck, by 2050 it will all be well figured out.

39 minutes ago, wxtrix said:

it's not a "different scientific view". it's flat out untruths which have no place in a scientific debate. lies are lies.

Seems a very firm viewpoint. Needs some very direct examples to be accepted.

As the late Oliver Cromwell once memorably said 'I beseech you, by the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken'. 

Humility goes a lot further than proof by assertion.

39 minutes ago, wxtrix said:

 

23 hours ago, gravitylover said:

Turned into a pretty nice late afternoon. Looking forward to some dry time tomorrow to work on the truck. Its getting a new thermostat, new rear shocks, new pads and brake hardware up front, new sway links in front and I'll figure out what needs to be done next. I know a bunch of bushings and rubber bits need to be replaced and I think I need to rebuild at least the front Brembo calipers and lube and massage the rears I'm pretty sure all the control arm bushings are shot, at least a couple of ball joints and the hub knuckle bushings on the right rear are scary bad but I'll  confirm all that while things are apart.

Anyone wanna come help?

Cars assembled from spare parts cost at least 3x as much as the dealer charges. Spares are where the money is, is cars as well as in airplanes.

So if you're spending your long weekend doing a suspension tear down, thank you, you're helping keep small US suppliers alive.

Kind of sad, I walk by the Central Park site almost daily and even I, no weather expert,  can see that the location is poor.

Trees to the east shading the morning sun, more to the west to block any late rays,. How can anyone take measurements from here as representative?

I'd be happier if they moved  the thermometer to the Belvedere Castle pole, even if it is another 20' up.

On 5/27/2021 at 6:28 PM, RedSky said:

Actually I don't think they eat once they emerge 

 

Afaik, they do, but is seems sort of pointless, they only need to live long enough to mate and lay their eggs. Maybe Nature is hedging her bets in case of bad weather

I've no idea whether males mate multiple times, in which case being able to eat might be a real advantage, unlike the situation with Mayflies.

35 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Record Low Maximum Temperatures: May 29, 2021

Atlantic City: 54°(old record: 56°, 1946)
Binghamton: 45° (old record: 50°, 1964)
Bridgeport: 52° (old record: 58°, 1950)
Farmingdale: 52° (old record: 59°, 2017)
Harrisburg: 52° (old record: 57°, 1990)
Hartford: 49° (old record: 51°, 1917) ***Latest-season high in the 40s***
Islip: 51° (old record: 58°, 2017)
Mount Pocono: 43° (old record: 53°, 1990) ***Coldest high so late in the season***
New Haven: 53° (old record: 58°, 2017)
New York City-JFK: 52° (old record: 57°, 1967)
New York City-LGA: 52° (old record: 58°, 1950)
New York City-NYC: 51° (tied record set in 1884) ***Coldest high so late in the season***
Newark: 52°(old record: 60°, 1940 and 1950)
Philadelphia: 54° (old record: 56°, 1884)
Poughkeepsie: 50° (old record: 58°, 1990 and 2017)
Scranton: 50°(old record: 56°, 1967)
Trenton: 50° (old record: 57°, 1901)
Westhampton: 51° (old record: 58°, 2017)
White Plains: 49° (old record: 58°, 2017) ***Latest-season high in the 40s***

 

Quite an impressive performance. It seems to have been a more potent system than expected. Any insights as to why?

11 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I'm actually using this machine I bought online, it has a UV light and some sort of gas that attracts them and they get trapped inside the container and they die.  It seems to be working because when I clean it out every month there are lots of mosquitoes, gnats and flies in there.

 

The UV traps moistly catch harmless insects and mosquito predators, so they make your yard safer for mosquitoes.

There are lots of traps that use CO2 as a lure for mosquitoes, these are somewhat useful, but don't expect miracles.

Any BBQ emits way more CO2 than these traps, but I've never seen any mosquitoes self immolating on them.

Do the various changes in the definition/recognition of such storms play a substantial role? 

It would be nice if we could avoid 'grade inflation' in meteorology.

11 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

isn't the sea level rise along the east coast of the US and the gulf coast supposed to be accelerating more than most?

It would be a nice to see a global map of where sea level rise has been higher than other areas and where it will accelerate the most in the future.

I've sen some maps like that, only one I could find was here:  https://psmsl.org/products/trends/

The detail maps I've seen show both rises as well as falls, often quite localized. Presumably this reflects local issues. 

Given that the earth is far from a sphere, it is frankly a miracle to measure ocean height to within a few millimetres.